Chuffed

[spacenase]

@Phil xxkr - Here's a quote from the report's summary:

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has set a guideline limit for RFR requiring that mobile devices emit an SAR of less than of 1.6 W/kg as measured in a volume containing 1 g of tissue absorbing the signal. In contrast, animals in the NTP studies received whole-body exposure to higher levels of RFR to identify potential target organs and to characterize toxicity. The highest exposure of 6 W/kg in rats and 10 W/kg in mice, for a total of 9 h 10 min a day (achieved by cycling for 10 min on, 10 min off over 18 h 20 min), produced higher exposures than experienced by humans under normal cellular phone use conditions. Thus, whether the findings in the NTP animal studies (eg, malignant gliomas in the brain and malignant schwannomas in the hearts of male rats; increased levels of DNA damage in hippocampal cells of male rats and the frontal cortex of male mice) indicate a potential for adverse health outcomes in humans remains a question.

So whilst the study definitely raises a concern, it's not a clear reflection of normal human exposure to RFR from mobile phones. I guess we await further studies on this before anything becomes unequivocal.

 

[LenT]

4 hours ago, spacenase said:

@Phil xxkr - Here's a quote from the report's summary:

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has set a guideline limit for RFR requiring that mobile devices emit an SAR of less than of 1.6 W/kg as measured in a volume containing 1 g of tissue absorbing the signal. In contrast, animals in the NTP studies received whole-body exposure to higher levels of RFR to identify potential target organs and to characterize toxicity. The highest exposure of 6 W/kg in rats and 10 W/kg in mice, for a total of 9 h 10 min a day (achieved by cycling for 10 min on, 10 min off over 18 h 20 min), produced higher exposures than experienced by humans under normal cellular phone use conditions. Thus, whether the findings in the NTP animal studies (eg, malignant gliomas in the brain and malignant schwannomas in the hearts of male rats; increased levels of DNA damage in hippocampal cells of male rats and the frontal cortex of male mice) indicate a potential for adverse health outcomes in humans remains a question.

So whilst the study definitely raises a concern, it's not a clear reflection of normal human exposure to RFR from mobile phones. I guess we await further studies on this before anything becomes unequivocal.

 

Precisely so, Keith.  What struck me is that this final paragraph is somewhat at odds with the initial Summary.   The comments expressed here reflect my observations in my original post on the subject.

Namely, these animals were being subjected to unfeasibly high levels of RFR for unrealistic periods of time in order to prompt the development of carcinomas.  And even then either some  negative results were obtained or they were described as 'equivocal'.  Where cancerous cell development was observed, it wasn't even consistent across the sexes.  I don't see that this 2019 Report actually adds very much to the debate.

Let's take one of the experimental protocols:

Rats were exposed to SARs of 0, 1.5, 3.0, or 6.0 W/kg (CDMA or GSM) RFR (900 MHz) beginning in utero at GD5 and continuing through gestation (~2 weeks) until weaning at PND28. Exposures continued for 14 weeks after weaning. 

In other words, a 5-day old embryo - a developmental time when cells and DNA are at their most fragile - is being subjected to radiation levels up to four times the maximum recommended dose for up to 9 hours a day for 16 weeks.

Quite how this can be confidently extrapolated into a realistic threat to humans, at the low SAR levels currently recommended by such as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, is surely difficult to justify.  Indeed it's not the only element of this research that I think is debatable.

However, with regard to its general acceptance, in June 2020 the American Cancer Society, which clearly 'has a horse in this race', could only bring itself to observe 'A 2019 review of these two studies by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) determined that the limitations of the studies didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer.'

The full article can be read here.  https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html

Like most research, the ultimate conclusion is that more research is needed!

According to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC):

“[C]urrently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF safety standards than is currently used.”

And finally my apologies to anyone who thinks this subject is not appropriate for this post!

 

[Malc]

" of mice and men " eh ! someone wrote a book about this a little while back methinks 

Now then, what's this mouse ( mat ) next to my desktop got to do with it all ............  is it some sort of Govt trial of radiation links emanating from my desktop screen that's being surreptitiously recorded for posterity ( or is it prosterioritry  or preposteriority ) 

C'mon guys, lighten-up please, this is getting far too highbrow for most on here .  well, me anyway ....  maybe it's me age got to do summat wiv'it 

Malc

[Tel]

My 2021 Carlink Dongle works perfectly but is not the latest Version that has an improved spec.

amazon Market Place can be a minefield , the correct 2021 spec dongle will be delivered today

Tel.

[Phil xxkr]

49 minutes ago, Tel said:

My 2021 Carlink Dongle works perfectly but is not the latest Version that has an improved spec.

Amazon Market Place can be a minefield , the correct 2021 spec dongle will be delivered today

Tel.

Now then Tel, as young people potentially have access to this forum do we really need to know about the state of your dongle? 😂

[Phil xxkr]

5 hours ago, LenT said:

Precisely so, Keith.  What struck me is that this final paragraph is somewhat at odds with the initial Summary.   The comments expressed here reflect my observations in my original post on the subject.

Namely, these animals were being subjected to unfeasibly high levels of RFR for unrealistic periods of time in order to prompt the development of carcinomas.  And even then either some  negative results were obtained or they were described as 'equivocal'.  Where cancerous cell development was observed, it wasn't even consistent across the sexes.  I don't see that this 2019 Report actually adds very much to the debate.

Let's take one of the experimental protocols:

Rats were exposed to SARs of 0, 1.5, 3.0, or 6.0 W/kg (CDMA or GSM) RFR (900 MHz) beginning in utero at GD5 and continuing through gestation (~2 weeks) until weaning at PND28. Exposures continued for 14 weeks after weaning. 

In other words, a 5-day old embryo - a developmental time when cells and DNA are at their most fragile - is being subjected to radiation levels up to four times the maximum recommended dose for up to 9 hours a day for 16 weeks.

Quite how this can be confidently extrapolated into a realistic threat to humans, at the low SAR levels currently recommended by such as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, is surely difficult to justify.  Indeed it's not the only element of this research that I think is debatable.

However, with regard to its general acceptance, in June 2020 the American Cancer Society, which clearly 'has a horse in this race', could only bring itself to observe 'A 2019 review of these two studies by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) determined that the limitations of the studies didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer.'

The full article can be read here.  https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html

Like most research, the ultimate conclusion is that more research is needed!

According to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC):

“[C]urrently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF safety standards than is currently used.”

And finally my apologies to anyone who thinks this subject is not appropriate for this post!

 

Very interesting post Len, as I said right at the start science is one of vigilant sceptism and I find informed opinions from any source always of value in steering my own "canoe" Thanks. Regarding relevance, well since cars are getting more loaded with technology ie Ev's who knows what the health implications will be? Right now I am learning more about the microbiome, can't see the connection as yet to Lexus but give it time 😂

[LenT]

 

Right now I’m learning about the microbiome, can’t see the connection as yet to Lexus, but give it time.
 

Good luck with that Philip!

A rapidly expanding field of interest indeed.  If you haven’t come across it then you might find this article of interest.

https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-020-00875-0#change-history

As an aside, one of the organisms studied are the Cyanobacteria to which we all owe our very existence!  The first organism to evolve the process of photosynthesis and begin the development of an oxygen-rich atmosphere in the primitive Earth’s environment.

It was the start of ‘Life as we know it, Jim.’ as Mr Spock almost said.

[Phil xxkr]

6 minutes ago, LenT said:

 

Good luck with that Philip!

A rapidly expanding field of interest indeed.  If you haven’t come across it then you might find this article of interest.

https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-020-00875-0#change-history

As an aside, one of the organisms studied are the Cyanobacteria to which we all owe our very existence!  The first organism to evolve the process of photosynthesis and begin the development of an oxygen-rich atmosphere in the primitive Earth’s environment.

It was the start of ‘Life as we know it, Jim.’ as Mr Spock almost said.

Thanks Len, been watching steven grundy on utube, fascinating stuff 👍

[Malc]

2 hours ago, LenT said:

It was the start of ‘Life as we know it,

ah, " of mice and men "  Steinbeck from his life ordeals in the early 1900's and from Robbie Burns a tad earlier ....  in 1785 .....  " go oft awry "  ...  could sum up why mice are such an intrinsic part of modern day scientific studies results .......  " often going awry " 

Malc

[RajWJFWJK]

On 8/21/2021 at 8:08 AM, Tel said:

Re ACP,

Fitted a 2021 Carlink Gismo which has transformed my NX Media System that now works perfectly with phone calls, the MLS System & erased all wired connectivity issues.

iPhone needs to be on the Charrging Pad as even a 70 mile journey consumes the battery.

Tel

Hi,

Do you mind sharing which Carlink Gismo did you get so that I could also get the same. 

Thanks

[Tel]

The Carlink Gismo is on amazon & the latest version has a short detachable cable & a much improved status light across the front face.

Tel